[ LETTER ]

Love of Weapons Over Children

Published: Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:23 a.m.

Last Modified: Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:23 a.m.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof asks whether, in the wake of Newtown, Americans can muster the will to bring about reasonable and effective reforms to weapons laws ("Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" op-ed, Dec. 18).

Although he castigates members of Congress as "feckless, craven politicians who won't stand up to the NRA" — a fair assessment — perhaps the question he should be asking is this: Do we Americans love our assault weapons more than we love our children? In spite of our immediate and indignant response to this question — "Of course we love our children more than our AK-47s!" — the evidence suggests otherwise.

Our Second Amendment right to bear arms was granted first to citizens toting muzzle-loading rifles, each firing a single projectile, and requiring 15 to 30 seconds to reload. To extend this right, without limitations or controls, to today's semiautomatic weaponry borders on the absurd. In the time it would have taken a militiaman to reload his musket in order to fire a second shot, the Newtown attacker had murdered 20 kindergarteners.

Yet, the NRA would have us accept its position that the right to own a weapon engineered solely for the purpose of killing the greatest number of persons within the briefest possible span of time is a right that must not be constrained nor abridged in any fashion.

So, to the leadership of the NRA, I say: Tuck your assault rifle into bed tonight, kiss it tenderly on the muzzle and think of the parents of Newtown whose children's beds are forever empty. In the view of many Americans, your unwillingness to compromise on limiting the sale of these rapid-fire weapons makes you complicit in this and other recent tragedies.

<p>New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof asks whether, in the wake of Newtown, Americans can muster the will to bring about reasonable and effective reforms to weapons laws ("Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" op-ed, Dec. 18).</p><p>Although he castigates members of Congress as "feckless, craven politicians who won't stand up to the NRA" — a fair assessment — perhaps the question he should be asking is this: Do we Americans love our assault weapons more than we love our children? In spite of our immediate and indignant response to this question — "Of course we love our children more than our AK-47s!" — the evidence suggests otherwise.</p><p>Our Second Amendment right to bear arms was granted first to citizens toting muzzle-loading rifles, each firing a single projectile, and requiring 15 to 30 seconds to reload. To extend this right, without limitations or controls, to today's semiautomatic weaponry borders on the absurd. In the time it would have taken a militiaman to reload his musket in order to fire a second shot, the Newtown attacker had murdered 20 kindergarteners.</p><p>Yet, the NRA would have us accept its position that the right to own a weapon engineered solely for the purpose of killing the greatest number of persons within the briefest possible span of time is a right that must not be constrained nor abridged in any fashion.</p><p>So, to the leadership of the NRA, I say: Tuck your assault rifle into bed tonight, kiss it tenderly on the muzzle and think of the parents of Newtown whose children's beds are forever empty. In the view of many Americans, your unwillingness to compromise on limiting the sale of these rapid-fire weapons makes you complicit in this and other recent tragedies.</p><p>J. NEIL SHEROUSE</p><p>Lakeland</p>